Grant County herald. [volume] (Lancaster, Wis.) 1850-1968, 1887-10-20
Gtant Gnnnty 8erala:
Test Whiskey Cases.

| Two cases tried at the present term
of circuit court here were of considera
BILE interest to those engaged in the liz.
uor business as we'll as to those working
for its suppression. The cases of th,
Estate VS.. A. II. Patch, and State VS.
IWinslow Quick were both appealed
from the justice to the circuit court
They were substantially the same
though the defence presented slightly
different points. The history of the
case is. in brief, as follows:
In September, 1886, Winslow Quick
of Patch Grove, was arrested on com
lplaint of John Lewis, chairman of the
town, for selling liquor to minor. His
case came before Justice Baldwin of this
city aud he was fined IS and costs,
which he paid. But it appears that the
liquor which he sold to the minor, one
Anderson, was not only sold on Sunday
but was sold in half-pint bottle and
taken out of the saloon TO be drank. As
tQuick's license is to sell liquor to be
"drank on the premises only, this in
the opinion of the States Attorney con
| stituted another offence. He was ac,
cordingly arrested again, two months
later, on complaint of the Rev. James
Jefferson, tried before the same justice
| and fined $50 and costs. This case was
appealed.
A. H. Patch was also arrested on a
similar complaint made by the same
party, tried by the same justice. had the
same fine imposed and appealed his
case.
The defense in Patch's case was that
he sold the liquor with the understand
| ing that it should be drank on the prem
ises. Some of it was. If any of it was
carried off and drank elsewhere it was
none of his business. The liquor was
then the property of the man who
bought it and he could do what he
pleased with 1t. 1t became a question
of intent. As the testimony of Patch him.
self, that he told the man that the liquor
must be drank on the premises was not
over overthrown, the jury acquitted
Patch. If they had convicted him the
case would have been appealed as it was
evidently the intention to test the ques-
ton raised by the defence. If the
principle could be established it would
save a good many dollars for the liquor
dealers in this county-not to say in the
state. In the city of Lancaster, where
the so called wholesale" license isS200,
| it would save the saloons $500. All the
dealer need do, according to this decis-
ion, is to tell man when he sells him a
bottle of liquor to drink it ION the
premises and then no matter where he
carries it, or where he drinks it.
The defence in the Quick case aimed
to fix another point, viz: What are to be
considered the premises, and how far
can they extend? But before submitting
this case to the jury point of law was
raised by the council for the defence,
that as Quick had been tried and fined
for this same act Though under diff
ferent complainD and had paid fine
for selling this same bottle of liquor, he
could not be tried again for the same
offence. The judge ruled against them
and the case went to the jury. 1t was
admitted that Quick sold the boy Ander-
son liquor, put it in bottle and put in
the cork, having first told the boy that
he could sell only to be drank on the
premises. The evidence was that the boy
went out of the saloon and drank the
liquor in or about an ice-house in the
rear of the saloon, but on the same lot
Therefore, defence claimed it ,caS drank
on the premises.
1t scenes then, that if this defence
could hold good in law, if the license
describes the property as situated on u
lot so and SO, the liquor may be drank
anywhere on the lot; if on 100, $40, or
GAO acre farm, anywhere on the "prem-
ises'' will do. In this case the jury dis
agreed and if the District Attorney does
not see fit to bring it up again, the mat
ter of the premises will remain an
open question. If he does try the
case again, and the jury convicts, the
Supreme Court will have chance to
lay down the law on both the points
raised in this case. Messrs. I. j.
Brooks and A. r. Bushnell defended,
and r. G. Orr assisted Dist Attorney
Murphy in the prosecution.
The question of the validity of license
where payment is not made in advance
also came up incidentally aud is worth
the while of those interested to examine.
We give the substance of Judge Glenn
entson's charge to the jury in the Quick
| case:
would not have you however sup
pose, anymore than the jury in the other
case would have had the right to sup
pose, that there is any valid license in
this case so far as the testimony shows
The application shows request for the
granting of license, payments to be
made in installments. The license was
not produced in evidence. Presump-
lively, being granted by the same board,
it was the same as in the other case,
which provided that the license money
should be paid quarterly in advance.
speak of this now so that the mistaken
impression may not go abroad that any
such arrangement between town board
and saloon keeper is valid.
The statute provides that license
shall not be delivered until the applicant
shall produce and file with the clerk
q receipt showing the payment ofthe sum
required therefor to the proper town,
city or village treasurer, and until the
4 filing with such clerk of the bond pro-
vided for.
These requirements are what is known
in the law as conditions precedent, and
must be complied with before valid
license can be issued. The provisions
of the law in this regard cannot be
altered or waived by q town board or
city council, or modified by any arrange
ment that may be entered into between
the town board and the saloon keeper.
The public at large are interested, and
~